Talk:List of minority-opinion scientific theories

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 String Theory 2 String theory? 3 A great article that needs expansion 4 Lack of references makes the article a travesty 5 Criteria for inclusion? 6 Merge Proposal

[edit] String Theory

I have removed string theory from the list because it is not a minority opinion. Most scientists know little about it because it is only required to explain observations that take place in ultra-massive particle interactions (think black holes and the big bang). This means that it has very little application to any area of science outside of cosmology and theoretical physics. Cosmologists and theoretical physicists generally accept M-theory, an expanded version of string theory that explains more observations. Please note that M-Theory is often referred to as string theory because it is actually a combination of 5 different versions of string theory along with 11 dimensional quantum gravity. --Savant13 17:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I reverted that change because it certainly is a minority theory. Many scientists in the field even question whether or not it's actually a proper theory. Hardly a theory that has achieved scientific consensus, even if it is a field of great interest. Vassyana 17:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

What is the basis of this opinion? Mine stems from articles in Scientific American and Astronomy (a peer reviewed journal), as well as books such as The Elegant Universe and various television programs which I can't remember the names of. Besides, just because it is an incomplete theory does not mean it is a minority one. There are still doubts about it among everyone, but no one (sane) insists that is correct beyond doubt. --Savant13 13:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

And where in these books and journals exactly does it state that string theory is generally accepted by the scientific community or even by its own researchers? —Pengo 14:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't memorize the things. I would also like to know if you have read the articles on string theory and M-theory. --Savant13 17:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The article itself states:

."Minority-opinion theories run counter to the majority view in science, called the "scientific consensus" (which is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the majority of scientists in a particular field of science at a particular time)."

Are you saying that string theory is accepted by the scientific consensus? If not, then it is indeed a minority view. Vassyana 21:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll agree it's been widely published, but not without wide criticism. A good example of what is wrong with string theory and why it is not a majority theory is from Woit, Peter (2002). Is string theory even wrong?. American Scientist:

"There is, however, one physical prediction that string theory does make: the value of a quantity called the cosmological constant (a measure of the energy of the vacuum). Recent observations of distant supernovae indicate that this quantity is very small but not zero. A simple argument in string theory indicates that the cosmological constant should be at least around 55 orders of magnitude larger than the observed value. This is perhaps the most incorrect experimental prediction ever made by any physical theory that anyone has taken seriously."

Peter Woit is hardly alone in his criticisms or critical view of string theory. Regardless, unless you're asserting one of the few predictions made by string theory is correct and accepted, it's hardly a widely accepted theory. Vassyana 22:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Evcen the supporters of string theory admit that it is not accepted or proven yet. Dr. Strominger, one of the strongest supporters of string theory, stated in an interview:

"First of all, I should say that string theory is a very promising, exciting and interesting proposal for developing our understanding of the laws of nature beyond where they currently stand. What happened is that we discovered that string theory contains within it particles and forces that look very, very much like the particles and forces that we see in the world around us. The door was opened to the possibility that string theory really is a theory of nature. The initial progress in 1984 and 1985 was so rapid and dramatic that many people had the feeling that we would push it all the way to the finish line within a few years or even months. That hasn't happened. Twenty years later the jury is still out. We don't know if string theory is the correct theory of nature or not."^[1]

When its own supporters admit it is not known whether or not it is correct, that's hardly reassuring to any claim it's accepted by scientific consensus. If you have evidence to the contrary, please provide it. Otherwise, for the time being, it certainly seems to be a minority theory. Vassyana 22:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The scientific consensus on string theory is that it is probably right. That is pretty good considering the fact that it is not yet a working theory. In fact, string theory encounters less resistance than quantum theory did, and quantum theory had more readily available results. If it were not for the incompleteness of the theory, I would not object to it being on this list. How about a compromise. We leave it on the list, but explain that it is not a complete theory. --Savant13 14:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

That is perfectly acceptable to me. Vassyana 18:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

A quick comment. While this shouldn't affect what can and can't appear on this list: I started this article/list with string theory as the only item on it. My motivation was that I wanted to know what other cool theories/hypotheses were in development, but with the pseudoscience filtered out. —Pengo 21:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Then you may wist to view this website--Savant13 18:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] String theory?

Are we sure this is a minority-opinion theory? It seems to be pretty prominent in its field. Sockatume 22:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• While it's attracting many researchers now, it certain is minority theory, if it can even be called a theory. It has made no testable predictions as yet, and is really very much a work in progress. It is not a mainstream accepted scientific theory. —Pengo ^{talk · contribs} 02:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• • Well, it's not widely accepted, for obvious reasons, but it seems to be attracting more than a minority of the research attention in its particular field. I suppose it all comes down to the particular definition of "minority opinion theory" used. Does it mean that only a minority are of the opinion that it's correct, or only a minority are of the opinion that it's worth pursuing? You could wind up with two very different lists of theories unless it's clarified. Sockatume 17:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A great article that needs expansion

This is a great article that needs expansion. I have offered up a section on Paradigm shift with Good intentions. Often a minority-opinion theory in science becomes a majority-opinion after a Paradigm shift. Let's keep working on this article. ProfessorPaul 01:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lack of references makes the article a travesty

I have removed a number of points that will be glaringly hard to reference adequately. I have also tagged this article as needed references. --ScienceApologist 13:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criteria for inclusion?

Just a proposal for what should and should not be listed:

1. Must be related to science (or medicine):

The theory should be an area where at least one paper has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or the idea has been substantially discussed by the scientific community.

2. Must be a theory:

The theory should be a specific claim with evidence that can be evaluated (i.e. not a denial of mainstream opinion, but an actual theory offering an explanation or at least one testable hypothesis).

3. Must receive some actual support:

The theory should not be one that has been so poorly supported or soundly rejected that no one in the scientific community considers it serious (i.e. anything that would be crosslisted as a conspiracy theory).

4. Must be a minority opinion:

The theory should not be one that is broadly accepted in the scientific community or one where there is no clear consensus opinion. For example, psychiatry is currently split between "mind first" explanations of depression, favoring talk therapy, and "body first" explanations favoring medication and neither could be considered a true "minority" opinion.

Intelligent design might meet these criteria, but I haven't heard much about it lately and it may simply be discredited rather than minority. The various global warming skepticisms (not anthropogenic, not CO2, etc...) definitely qualify as minority. AIDS denialism is not a specific theory, though theories that AIDS is caused by drug addiction or malnutrition might meet these criteria.Somedumbyankee (talk) 20:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merge Proposal

In doing some poking around to find things for the list, I came across Fringe science. The two pages discuss the same thing, and while that article is better constructed, this is a less judgmental title and I'd prefer to stick with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Somedumbyankee (talk • contribs) 21:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

You're quite right about the pejorative, but I'm not sure a merge is a good idea insofar as "fringe" may connote "tiny minority" while this list covers basically any minority. But we could always cite sources saying how big the minority view is; that's why lists are good: lots of room for annotation. I think we could use some V RS's giving the definition of "fringe" as it's used in the scientific community. cheers, Jim Butler (t) 04:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the working definitions used in the articles, both seem to address the same sort of theories: those that are scientific but not widely accepted. It would seem to make sense to have this page be a list of things associated with the other page, but we should probably use a harmonized definition and terms.Somedumbyankee (talk) 04:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Would string theory count as fringe science though? It seems to me to be mainstream, even though a minority would support it. —Pengo 09:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Good point, Pengo; I doubt too many sources would identify string theory as "fringe". Somedumbyankee, I think a substantial problem with the term "fringe science" is that we don't seem to have a clear, generally-accepted definition. My sense is that the term refers to that subset of scientific minority views that are held by a particularly small minority. But we'd need good sources (both defining the term and giving examples) to be sure. At present, I think that article has a fair amount of original research.

However, for purposes of this list, we don't need to worry about whether to label a topic "fringe"; we just need some evidence that a topic is not a majority view, and also not a pseudoscience or other non-scientific view. If we can also provide some idea of how big or small the minority is, so much the better. Does that make sense? --Jim Butler (t) 19:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

One more thought: there is probably a undue weight problem with including tiny-minority, borderline pseudoscientific views (like AIDS reappraisal and nonanthropogenic climate change) with more sizable minority views (like multiregional hypothesis or Homo floresiensis as a modern human with microencephaly). I can see this article becoming a place where advocates of tiny minority views would want to place their pet topics alongside more popular topics in order to gain a modicum of respectability. How should we handle this? My instinct is just to let the facts speak for themselves: do our best to find sources indicating how big or small the views really are. --Jim Butler (t) 20:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

All those topics are just what this article is about. If you can find more on how marginal they are, that's great, but I don't think there's any great need to say "This is a tiny tiny minority and not nearly as big as those other minority theories" —Pengo 16:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Comparing definitions used in the actual articles, this page lists minority opinions as "a scientific theory which has not gained wide-spread acceptance in the scientific community, usually because of lack of supporting evidence, because it challenges a well-established theory, or because its claims are falsifiable but not yet verified." It goes on to differentiate minority opinion from psuedoscience. The other article defines it as: "Fringe science is seen by most scientists as rational, but unlikely. A valid fringe science may avoid recognition by a scientific consensus for a variety of reasons, including incomplete or contradictory evidence. Fringe science can be a protoscience that is not yet accepted by the vast majority of scientists." As for string theory, it's probably more "proto" than "fringe" or "minority" and doesn't belong in either article.Somedumbyankee (talk) 02:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)